Turns out honesty isn't always the best policy

[tomBitonti]

We could have a whole debate on ethics and what that means. Here I think people are labeling behavior that they think causes harm to society and its members to be the standard.

A company raising the price of a potentially lifesaving medication like that, that has been affordable for decades and decades, doesn't strike me as a good thing. Should any action that achieves corporate goals be acceptable and ethical? Particularly when they actions can be shown to create harm to the public and undermine a healthcare system that is already shaky? Sorry but part of this discussion is us trying to decide what sort of world we want to create for ourselves. If you want to live in a world where corporate revenue is the only measure of the good, I can't join you. I think there is a good in keeping medicine as affordable as possible. Most folks understand that putting a new drug on the market takes big investments and that means there will be a few years of prices being high. What people are having trouble understanding is why we're taking a medicine that has been affordable for a very long time and seeing the price skyrocket just because some company bought the marketing rights. That seems exploitative to me.

Sure. And I don't disagree with your conclusion.

But I disagree with the characterization of what was done re: raising the price.

At least here in the US, folks who compete in a market are expected to aggressively compete. To take risks at the edges of the marketplace. Not just to improve products and services, but also to achieve higher profits. In the current example, we should *expect* that someone will step up and raise prices. That this happens is a feature of the economic system, and arguably a desirable feature.

What behaviors are should be encouraged (or discouraged) is a policy question and a legal question. What *should* happen is that when behavior reaches a level that is objectionable, then a policy discussion should be had, and laws and regulations changes to modify the behavior. (I would expect policy makers to not always wait for an extreme failure. Waiting for a power plant or a bridge to fail before enacting *some* regulation seems like a bad idea.)

What would be a failure here is a failure to policy makers to adjust laws and regulations as befits the public good.

I'm prepared not only to accept that there is a real failure, but also to propose that there is in fact severe dysfunction.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure. And I don't disagree with your conclusion.

But I disagree with the characterization of what was done re: raising the price.

At least here in the US, folks who compete in a market are expected to aggressively compete. To take risks at the edges of the marketplace. Not just to improve products and services, but also to achieve higher profits. In the current example, we should *expect* that someone will step up and raise prices. That this happens is a feature of the economic system, and arguably a desirable feature.

What behaviors are should be encouraged (or discouraged) is a policy question and a legal question. What *should* happen is that when behavior reaches a level that is objectionable, then a policy discussion should be had, and laws and regulations changes to modify the behavior. (I would expect policy makers to not always wait for an extreme failure. Waiting for a power plant or a bridge to fail before enacting *some* regulation seems like a bad idea.)

What would be a failure here is a failure to policy makers to adjust laws and regulations as befits the public good.

I'm prepared not only to accept that there is a real failure, but also to propose that there is in fact severe dysfunction.

Thx!
TomB

All you are doing is saying it is legal, so it is legal for him to do. No one disputes the legality. What folks are saying is something ought to be done about it and that just because something is legal and/or encouraged by the system, that doesn't make it okay. We can still bring pressure on this guy to take a different course of action. And we can certainly judge his behavior privately. Using legality and profit margins as the sole measure of an actions moral value seems quite flawed. The economic and legal systems are not the only systems that help guide behavior (and that is a darn good thing). People are also guided by moral precepts from philosophy and religion. Here I think the man is in egregious violation of some basic moral principles that most people share. Pointing out that transgression is more than fair.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure. And I don't disagree with your conclusion.

But I disagree with the characterization of what was done re: raising the price.
B

well your argument amounts to "its okay to harm people if its legal and maximizes revenue." This simply isn't how we should encourage people to do business. That is why you have business ethics courses for example. Saying "its allowed so its okay" doesn't quite cut it for me. He is still responsible for his actions and the impact those actions have on other people. That would be like saying saying at the height of slavery that its perfectly acceptable to own slaves and we shouldn't judge slave owners because what they are doing is perfectly legal and it is how the economic system is supposed to work. Sure you would also want to law makers to enact laws eradicating slavery, but people who choose to own slaves in that scenario are still doing something wrong and causing harm.

 

[Morrus]

All you are doing is saying it is legal, so it is legal for him to do. No one disputes the legality.

well your argument amounts to "its okay to harm people if its legal and maximizes revenue."

I think you need to read his post again.

He's saying it's legal but dysfunctional, and that the correct response is to alter legislation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think you need to read his post again.

He's saying it's legal but dysfunctional, and that the correct response is to alter legislation.

No I understand that. But he is saying that all that matters is the system and its shape, that individuals are not morally responsible for their actions within that system provided they follow the rules. I think he and other posters are making it sound like we have to choose between enacting new policies and encouraging people to behave ethically independent of government regulations. We can do both these things. I think most people see that we need to reform the system but understand that they system is never going to be perfect and that it will always require there be a basic expectation of human decency as well. Obviously the policies need to be changed. But that doesn't mean Mr Schkreli is free from judgment here.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think you need to read his post again.

He's saying it's legal but dysfunctional, and that the correct response is to alter legislation.

This is quote below the mindset I was replying to. This is more than saying the system is dysfunctional and it should be repaired. It is saying the it was ethical to raise the price of the drug if it increases revenue because within the current system, that is what a company ought to do. It absolves anyone acting within the system, any person who runs a business or serves as a CEO from moral responsibility so long as the actions they take are not illegal and increase profits. I think this puts too much faith into a system to behave ethically on its own. I think it is crucial that the people who make up the system be expected to conduct themselves with basic human decency and not do things like charge people hundreds of dollars for a pill that should cost under 20 bucks:

If the drug was being sold by a publicly traded company, where the board has a duty to achieve the corporate goals, and those were stated to be increasing dividends, then it would be unethical to *not* raise the price. Outside of an additional value, e.g., company reputation, or the possibility of triggering regulatory scrutiny, a board member would have a *duty* to raise the price.

 

[Kramodlog]

To continue on the matter, a US company is challenging Canada's drug price control law. Interesting angle. http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-s-patent-drug-price-controls-challenged-1.2581705

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Let us return, for a moment, to the point this originated with - you said, "People get upset at this one guy because he is actually honest about how the drug industry works."

That isn't correct. What he did is *not* how the industry works. So, anger at him is *not* the same as anger at the industry, as you contend.

I'll give you half a right. Yes, it isn't how the companies generally behave, but he is not doing something that other companies can't, or haven't used before. Did other companies raise the price as steeply as Shkreli did? I don't know. It's possible that they did. It's probable that they didn't. In any case, the ay that companies come up with a price is pretty much the same way as Shkreli did.

Irrelevant. Nobody here is saying he should be arrested. "Legal" doesn't mean "beyond reproach". People can be justifiably angry at perfectly legal actions.

If you feel it's irrelevant, that's fine. I feel it's relevant. Should people be upset that this guy did this? Yes. I'm not denying that. Never have. I just feel that people should also be upset that it is legal to do what he is doing. People should feel upset that he did it, and that he can legally do it.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Are you serious? His behavior matters a great deal to the peoples' whose lives are impacted by his choices. Yeah, I am not getting where your coming from at all.

Eh... I'm kind of being serious... an adding some exaggeration to it. Yeah, it matters to the people that are impacted by this. It should matter to everyone, really. But unfortunately, as much as it matters to people, it doesn't matter much in the end and Shkreli, and anyone else in the pharmaceutical industry can keep doing the same. Does it matter to people? Of course it does. Does their concern make any difference? Not unless they get off their butts and push lawmakers to make pass regulations that make it so this can't continue to happen.

I guess will just have to move on. *snip* I am starting to really my interactions with you in the past. I don't think we are going to make a lot of headway with this back and forth.

I'm not sure what you meant by that. I'm assuming you're referencing some interaction(s) we've had in the past. My intent wasn't to insult you or upset you. If you were upset or insulted by my posts, I apologize.

I've seen what you said. But I don't think you are making a lot of sense. I am all for reforming the system and pressuring politicians do act. That still doesn't mean we should ignore his terrible behavior. It isn't a choice between one or the other. And public critiques do seem to be having an effect, since he has been issuing responses. I am rarely in favor of using shame or aggression, but when someone is doing something that can lead to people dying or have a huge impact on the health care system, I am all for people letting him know how they feel and pressuring institutions and companies to do what they can to make it hard for him to do business this way.

I completely agree with the bolded part. That's my point. It shouldn't be one or the other. It should be both. Don't be upset with just Shkreli. Be upset with Shkreli and the pharmaceutical industry. Don't be upset with just Shkreli and the pharmaceutical industry. Be upset with Shkreli, the pharmaceutical industry and the politicians that allow this to continue. There is plenty of blame to go around. Shkreli seems to be getting an disproportionate amount.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

To continue on the matter, a US company is challenging Canada's drug price control law. Interesting angle. http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-s-patent-drug-price-controls-challenged-1.2581705

Murica.